Perhaps we misinterpreted Civ-unique units?

[Ralf]

I was reading the interesting new Gamespot preview then I stumbled across below quote, about units:

"Strategic resources serve a different purpose than luxury items do - the type of resources you have access to determines the units you can build. Basically, you can't build swordsmen if you don't have access to iron, nor can you build units such as tanks if you don't have control over iron, oil, and rubber. "It becomes a real game of trying to corner the market on certain resources so that you can be a power broker among the other civilizations," Briggs said. "If you have complete control over iron, you're the only one with swordsmen, so you can pretty much dominate."

Not long ago there was a inflamed debate over what was best: either "units given to you by civ-choice", or "units given to you by how successful you play the game". Its seems to me that Firaxis have implemented a little of both:
[*] Civ-unique unit-grapics & with small tweaks in ADM-data (optional).[*] Resource-unique units available to you by how well you play the game.

I am becoming more and more impressed with what I see. I must say the whole issue have come a long way since that original debate. Ultimately it all stand and fall by how well the AI can handle this, of course...

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 16, 2001).]

[polymths]

My understanding is that the Civ specific units was pre-destined but that like any other unit, you would still need access to resources to build it.

So whether you are building Generic Legion or the Roman Legion, you will need iron but the Romans have been pre-destined since 4000BC to have the ability to build Roman Legions when the time came.

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-16-2001 04:29 PM My understanding is that the Civ specific units was pre-destined but that like any other unit, you would still need access to resources to build it.

i think he's right. he speaks of "swordmen" and "tanks", not anything like "roman legions" or "panzers"....

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-16-2001 04:29 PM So whether you are building Generic Legion or the Roman Legion, you will need iron but the Romans have been pre-destined since 4000BC to have the ability to build Roman Legions when the time came.

If its only a question of graphics - who cares? And if the ADM-tweaks is optional?

Also; If it shouldnt be pre-destinated that Rome alone have access to legions, why should it pre-destinated that Rome have access to legions at all? What did they knew about alternative futures in 4000 BC? Why not allowing Rome building samurais instead? N0??? That would be wrong and arkward, wouldnt it?

It is a contradiction that I simply don't get!

Besides, if iron gives you a legion or a swordsman or something else, depending on which civ you play - and each of them have reasonably similar ADM-stats - then whats the problem? If a swordsman fights a legion, he is not that disadvantageous. I say variety = fun!

--------------- Edited:
My only condition is that the player can check-up the ADM-stats by some quick & easy way; right-click-and-hold that foreign unit for context-sensitive pop-up info, for example (so dont just choose the lazy alternative here by only providing a link to the Civilopedia main page).
----------------------

My original dislike about "Civ-unique benefits" was much more about SMAC-style social engineering pluses & minuses attached to each and every damn Civ/faction. THAT I dont want to se in Civ-3 - and I will definitely try to nullify it if they nevertheless chooses to implement it. Civ-unique units is by comparison, rather harmless.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 16, 2001).]

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-16-2001 05:32 PM If its only a question of graphics - who cares? And if the ADM-tweaks is optional? Also; If it shouldnt be pre-destinated that Rome alone have access to legions, why should it pre-destinated that Rome have access to legions at all? What did they knew about alternative futures in 4000 BC? Why not allowing Rome building samurais instead? N0??? That would be wrong and arkward, wouldnt it? It is a contradiction that I simply don't get! Besides, if iron gives you a legion or a swordsman or something else, depending on which civ you play - and each of them have reasonably similar ADM-data - so what the problem? If a swordsman fights a legion, he is not that disadvantageous. I say variety = fun! My original dislike about "Civ-unique benefits" was much more about SMAC-style social engineering pluses & minuses attached to each and every damn Civ/faction. THAT I dont want to se in Civ-3 - and I will definitely try to nullify it if they nevertheless chooses to implement it. Civ-unique units in above interpretation is by comparison, rather harmless.

My understanding is that all the Civ unique units were simply slightly improved versions of the generic units. So perhaps the panzer tank has one more MP or one more attack or whatever over the generic tank.

In other words, the Civ specific units are not equivalent units with different ADM from generic unit but are slightly better than the generic units in some small way.

So if you disable Civ specific units, everyone will simply by building the generic units.

I know that for the most part I will be disabling it!